Commit f31e11d8 authored by Oleg Nesterov's avatar Oleg Nesterov Committed by Ingo Molnar

wait_task_inactive(): don't consider task->nivcsw

If wait_task_inactive() returns success the task was deactivated.  In that
case schedule() always increments ->nvcsw which alone can be used as a
"generation counter".

If the next call returns the same number, we can be sure that the task was
unscheduled.  Otherwise, because we know that .on_rq == 0 again, ->nvcsw
should have been changed in between.

Q: perhaps it is better to do "ncsw = (p->nvcsw << 1) | 1" ?  This
decreases the possibility of "was it unscheduled" false positive when
->nvcsw == 0.
Signed-off-by: default avatarOleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
parent 94d3d824
......@@ -1921,11 +1921,8 @@ unsigned long wait_task_inactive(struct task_struct *p, long match_state)
running = task_running(rq, p);
on_rq = p->se.on_rq;
ncsw = 0;
if (!match_state || p->state == match_state) {
ncsw = p->nivcsw + p->nvcsw;
if (unlikely(!ncsw))
ncsw = 1;
}
if (!match_state || p->state == match_state)
ncsw = p->nvcsw ?: 1;
task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
/*
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment